Revisional power barred by limitation for escaped turnover, and saving provisions did not revive expired jurisdiction.

Revisional jurisdiction could not be used to enhance an assessment of escaped or under-assessed turnover after the special limitation period had expired, because the statutory time bar governing reassessment continued to control the power. The notice was therefore invalid under the old enactment. The successor sales tax law and its saving and deeming provisions did not revive that barred jurisdiction, since they preserved prior rights and liabilities only within the limits of the new Act's own revision period, which was itself time-barred after three years from the order sought to be revised. The revisional notice was accordingly without jurisdiction and beyond limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner could initiate suo motu revision to enhance the assessment after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed for escaped or under-assessed turnover. (ii) Whether the notice was nevertheless valid under the repealed and saving provisions of the new sales tax enactment.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner could initiate suo motu revision to enhance the assessment after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed for escaped or under-assessed turnover.

Analysis: The assessment related to an earlier tax period and the statute provided a special mechanism for bringing escaped turnover or turnover assessed at a lower rate to tax within a fixed period. The revisional power under the old enactment could not be used to circumvent that special limitation. Revisional jurisdiction was held to remain subject to the statutory time bar governing reassessment of escaped or under-assessed turnover, and once that period had expired the enhancement could not validly be pursued.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid insofar as it sought to revise the assessment after the expiry of the statutory limitation period.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice was nevertheless valid under the repealed and saving provisions of the new sales tax enactment.

Analysis: On repeal of the old enactment, the new Act saved earlier rights and liabilities but only within the limits of its own revision provision, which itself barred initiation after three years from the date of the order sought to be revised. The legal fiction deeming earlier assessments to have been made under the new Act did not enlarge the Commissioner's power beyond that limitation. The effect of the saving and deeming provisions was to preserve existing liabilities and rights, not to revive a power already time-barred.

Conclusion: The notice was also invalid under the new Act and its saving provision.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded because the impugned revisional notice was issued without jurisdiction and beyond the statutory time limits governing both the old and new enactments.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional power cannot be invoked to enhance an assessment of escaped or under-assessed turnover after the special limitation for reassessment has expired, and a saving or deeming provision in a successor statute does not revive that barred jurisdiction.

---